PECULIAR DIVORCE CASE.

Taranaki Daily News, 29 November 1919, Page 7

PECULIAR DIVORCE CASE.

BURGLAR AS RESPONDENT. FOLLOWED WIFE TO ENGLAND. A petition for divorce on the grounds oi uesenwa and misconduct, brought by Ahce Violet Foreman against MwhA Altred 1-oreman, was heard in the Wei"ngton (Supreme Court on' Friday - rue petitioner said she was married to the r esj)on a ent in MaMjl) at laud. At the time of marriage response ? "V 110 but witnes/uad tW and part of tliat was used in pay. '«g the marriage expenses. They lived mn*??™ for about three months. Almost every night he wanted to turn her out of tua room, and he only gave her enough money to pay actual expenses. One night she was turnea out; it was raining very hard: she stayed out in the rain. On another occasion he turned her out and she took refuge m the Church of England and stayed there all night. They went to ie Puke, where she had to live in a shanty in which there was only the bed and a few boxes. On one occasion he threw her to the ground and she stayed out in the scrub all night. Petitioner afterwards went to Nelson, and respondent followed, wanting to take her haby rom her. He also followed her to Wellington and other places. Toward the end of 1913 she went to England to her people, and she had not been long there before the respondent appeared. Her people persuaded her to rejoin her husband for the sake of her child. They went to London, but he resumed his cruelty toward her. On her brother's solicitations she let the respondent have the child. She continued to reside in England, but the respondent returned to New Zealand with their child. In November, 1910, she received a cable message that her husband had been sentenced to six years' imprisonment for burglary. Witness returned to New Zealand in March, 1917, and found her child was in St. Mary's Home, Karori. Respondent, in evidence, denied all the allegations in the petition. The hearing was adjourned. /